A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever.
The present invention relates to an improved inlet system for trash chutes, linen chutes, (and any appropriate synonym for either “trash” or “linen” or “chute”) and the like.
Trash and linen chutes are ubiquitous in new and existing residential and commercial buildings. They can also be found in hospitals, nursing homes, hotels and other facilities where relatively large amounts of trash and/or harmful waste are to be conveyed for disposal and/or treatment, whether by removal from the building, incineration, cleaning and/or recycling. Entry to a chute is made via one or more inlets, generally on each building floor. Such inlets are either bottom-hinged or side hinged, and open toward the user.
Building codes and other standards, including both U.L.® and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), typically require such trash and linen chutes, chute shafts and/or chute enclosures, (collectively, “chutes”) and the inlets that serve them (whether collectively constructed of metal, concrete, fire-rated wall board, masonry, and the like, or some combination thereof) to be designed and constructed to afford the protection of the fire-ratings specific to the characteristics of the installation, i.e., zoning, occupancy use/type, building height and area, etc. The fire rated protection affords Life Safety relief to building visitors, users, occupants and/or firefighters from the untoward consequences of fires and/or their accompanying smoke discharges when such conflagrations are sourced in the chute or at the base of the chute. The intended reliefs come in many forms, either singularly or in combination including but not limited to, fire containment, fire suppression, fire alarms, and exiting or other egress paths. Please see appropriate codes and standards presented on the next page:
CodeStandardsDescriptionNFPA 80This is the National Fire Protection Association Chapter 80 prescribesstandards for gasketing materials used for air tightness to control noxiousgases or smoke. The Stage I Gasket is in compliance with this standard.105Definitions for Ambient, Warm and Hot Smoke Characteristics. Used as thebasis for determining compliance with UL Air Tightness Standard, UL 1784.The Stage II Gasket is in compliance with this standard. 82National Fire Protection Association Chapter 82 (NFPA-82) governs theinstallation requirements for trash and linen chutes. The preferredembodiment meets the existing criteria of this document, including thestandards pertinent to the ratios of effective opening and chute diameter fortrash and linen chutes, which are addressed by the preferred embodiment ina completely new way.Fail-SafeThis is a proposed new standard to NFPA-82. All previous art experiencesClosedand demonstrates a chute intake door failure by presenting the following(Proposedsymptom: the malfunctioning door fails to close. This failure automaticallyNewnegates the intent of the UL B-Label design of the door because the door noStandard)longer closes nor positively latches as required by the UL 10-B, B-LabelStandard (a protected opening is designed to prevent the spread of fireacross the opening). The preferred embodiment is designed to correct thisdeficiency by failing to open in the event of a malfunction, therebymaintaining all the life safety features intended by the aforementioned ULstandard. This is the essence of the Fail-Safe Closed feature. This featureexceeds the requirements of NFPA-82.UL10-CAllows for application of negative and positive pressure to a 90-Min. B-Labelopening during fire conditions. Limits door deflection at the weakest point ofthe span and seals against smoke transfer across the protected B-Labelopening. The Standard has never before been tested on a chute inlet door.All existing art meets the 90-minute B-Label Standard 10-B or other, similar,state-specified standards. Passing UL 10-C automatically includes passingthe 10-B standard. Passing the UL 10-B standard does not qualify for 10-Capproval.250 Deg.Maximum allowable temperature rise over the first 30 minutes of the UL B-MaximumLabel fire test measured at the center of the door face on the side oppositeTemp.the flame.Riseover 30Minutes1784Certification of Air Tightness. Never before applied to a chute intake door.Designed to control transfer of odors and gases across door opening duringnormal operation. The Stage II Gasket is in compliance with this standard.RetrofitProposed new UL Standard for certified retrofit installation of replacementInstall-door (All existing replacements void UL certifications by destroying theationoriginally designed assembly because the frame of the door must be(Proposedremoved from the wall (part of the UL 10-B, B-Label Assembly of wall + 90Newminute intake door designed to work in concert with one another to preventStandard)the transfer of fire across the protected opening). The preferred embodimentovercomes this deficiency in the existing art by leaving the original frameintact, thereby preserving and adding to the original assembly to maintain theB-Label protection. Additionally added is the UL 10-C Standard related tosmoke control thru the use of intumescent materials designed and approvedfor 10-C applications. The Stage II Gasket is in compliance with thisstandard.
Chute inlets typically provide containment through compliance with design features in accordance with Underwriters' Laboratories (U.L.®) Standard 10B. U.L.® 10B stipulates the fire test criteria for approval of 90-minute, B-Label doors to function as part of a door-plus-firewall assembly in new constructions to permit containment. The “assembly” concept is extremely important because a “B-Label” door does not provide containment as a freestanding object. In order to provide containment, the B-Label door must be assembled in a firewall in a manner identical to the assembly that was fire tested by U.L.® in order to secure the U.L.® B-Label rating for the door. In some rare instances, certain chute inlet manufacturers only design to State criteria, often very similar to U.L.®, but in those instances, their door products can only be used in those States issuing the approvals. The purpose of those approvals, however, is very similar in intent: To provide Life Safety protection and relief to building visitors, users, occupants, and/or firefighters.
The chute industry (and those who govern it with codes, guidelines, standards, inspections, etc.) recognizes that a problem exists when an inlet door of prior art fails. Specifically, component failure in prior art is identified by the inability of the inlet to properly close and latch. Such failure results in the total suspension of the B-Label design approval characteristics of the inlet-firewall assembly, thereby nullifying the potential for containment of fire and/or smoke emanating from the chute. Such failure consequently exposes building visitors, users, occupants, firefighters, and the physical property itself, to the real and well documented potential for catastrophic destruction and/or death.
It is further recognized that the replacement of a failed inlet door generally involves the removal of the existing door and its frame. That removed frame is part of the aforementioned U.L.® approved inlet-firewall assembly, originally constructed to specific Life Safety codes and standards. Removal of the existing inlet frame and the installation of a new inlet door and frame permanently destroys the U.L.® approval criteria because replacement requires destruction of the original anchoring criteria specified in compliance with the originally approved U.L.® testing. In short, the replacement of a door to repair a door that no longer closes (a retrofit installation) is only a choice of the lesser of two evils, not the restoration of original conditions.
Beginning in the previous decade, residential and other buildings have additionally become subject to the progressively revised provisions of the Americans' with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The mandatory compliance with this Federal law requiring Accessibility for existing buildings, such as apartment facilities and the like, requires the necessity of retrofit construction. The inherent problems of retrofit construction discussed in the previous paragraph are multiplied exponentially by this mandatory compliance.
CodeStandardsDescriptionADAGrab-Pinch-ADA (The Americans' with Disabilities Act) prohibits grabbing, pinching, orTwisttwisting and operating mechanism in order to effectuate the device action.OperatingADA limits the maximum operating force required to operate an interior doorForce(without specificity to size) to five (5) pounds.ADAGrab-Pinch-ADA (The Americans' with Disabilities Act) prohibits grabbing, pinching, orTwisttwisting and operating mechanism in order to effectuate the device action.OperatingADA limits the maximum operating force required to operate an interior doorForce(without specificity to size) to five (5) pounds.MountingThe maximum allowable mounting height of the operating mechanisms of anHeightADA compliant device is 54″ (side reach) or 48″ (front reach).WallThe maximum allowable projection of an ADA compliant device is 4″ off theProjectionsurface of the wall.
Attempts by previous art to address accessibility issues fall short of fulfilling the original construction criteria as discussed in the preceding paragraphs [0007] and [0008]. This prior art also fails to insure that a damaged inlet will close in the event of component failure, if for no other reason than an open, bottom-hinged door that has experienced a gas cylinder, counterbalance-type-failure, cannot defy gravity in order to close itself.
Unauthorized or unsafe use of a chute inlet due to lack of access control can lead to serious injury or even death should a person injure themselves by falling. Small children and college students have been known to be among the unfortunate victims of such falls.
Prior art either ignores access control or makes it so expensive as to prohibit its use in many instances.
Prior art also falls short of protecting workers from the effects of potentially injurious repetitive movements prohibited for workers by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA).
CodeStandardDescriptionOSHARepetitiveRepetitive manual activity can be injurious in theActionwork place. The use of the magnetic key fobeliminates the need for using hands to operate theinlet door. Waste materials can be disposedof with a simple pushing action that can beaccomplished without the use of hands if necessary.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,062,368 issued to Cluster P. Kamm on May 16, 2000 discloses a pull-out door having a rather complex arrangement of an electric motor, electric piston and cylinder lenses for moving the door, a switch means and control. Both the door swingable about a vertical axis and the operating mechanism are set within a frame-like box which can be unitarily installed, i.e. fixed within a pre-prepared opening in the wall housing the chute or the opening of the chute itself.
The disadvantages inherent in the device of U.S. Pat. No. 6,062,368 are many:
(a) It is fixed in size and cannot be readily retrofitted or adjusted to variances caused differences in construction; It has a complex operating mechanism which cannot be easily repaired or replaced and which is costly to manufacture;
(b) Although the patent emphasizes sanitary and health benefits there is no provision to seal the frame-like box in the chute opening to prevent feed back of waste and gases;
(c) The device of the patent employs a swing axis for the door by which the door swings outwardly into the path of the user inhibiting the efficient use of the system by the user. It is difficult to open when the user has both hands full.
(d) In the event of a door component failure, the door fails in a “door open” position, thereby negating the minimum, outdated Life Safety features offered.
(e) Access supervision is not provided, and
(f) The intake does not address OSHA requirements for the workplace.
In addition, various attempts have been made to provide non-automatic doors having a horizontal swing axis at the upper edge of the doors so that the door may close simply by falling. Refer to U.S. Pat. Nos. 1,108,1784; 1,297,360; 3,980,166; 4,339,998; and 4,694,947.
The patents, however, exhibit the same disadvantages as the aforementioned patent and above all, are not push-in.